Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!adm!MAILER%ALASKA.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
From: MAILER%ALASKA.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Undelivered mail
Message-ID: <12365@brl-adm.ARPA>
Date: 13 Mar 88 15:40:18 GMT
Sender: news@brl-adm.ARPA
Lines: 25

Subject:  Re: volatiles/consts inside structs in dpANS C

[Non-Deliverable:  User does not exist or has never logged on]

Reply-To: Info-C@BRL.ARPA

Received: From UWAVM(MAILER) by ALASKA with Jnet id 1209
          for SXJVK@ALASKA; Sun, 13 Mar 88 06:23 AST
Received: by UWAVM (Mailer X1.25) id 7098; Sun, 13 Mar 88 07:23:22 PST
Date:         Sun, 13 Mar 88 00:54:11 GMT
Reply-To:     Info-C@BRL.ARPA
Sender:       Info-C List <INFO-C@NDSUVM1>
From:         Henry Spencer <henry@utzoo.uucp>
Subject:      Re: volatiles/consts inside structs in dpANS C
Comments: To: info-c@BRL-SMOKE.arpa
To:           Vic Kapella <SXJVK@ALASKA>

As I recall (my copy isn't handy), the latest draft says that const,
volatile, etc. inside a struct sort of pop to the surface when you attempt
something like an assignment.  So assigning to a struct with a const
member is illegal.  Personally, I think such "buried qualifiers" should
simply be illegal, since they are useless...
--
Those who do not understand Unix are |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
condemned to reinvent it, poorly.    | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry